Basic info of the case:
Type: lawsuit related to patent invalidation
The plaintiff: Yangzhou Huateng Personal Care Products Co., Ltd. (Referred to as “Huateng”)
The defendant: The Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (Referred to as “PRB”)
The third Party: Happy Grass (Shanghai) Oral Care Products Co., Ltd. (Referred to as “Happy Grass”)
Info of the related patent:
patent number: 201620446724.3
application date: May 7, 2016
Brief description of the case
“Happy Grass” entrusted Beijing Top Win to file the patent invalidation against the patent mentioned above before the State Intellectual Property Office on December 7th, 2016, and provided relevant evidence.
“PRB” established a collegiate panel to review the case on request, and made a review decision No. 37758 on November 2nd, 2018 that the patent was invalid.
“Huateng” disagreed with this decision and later filed an administrative lawsuit against “PRB” before Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting to reject the decision of “PRB”. Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted the case on February 14th, 2019 and formed the collegiate bench to hear the case. As the third party in this case, “Happy Grass” entrusted Beijing Top Win Law Firm to participate in the hearing.
During the trial, the plaintiff explained the novelty of the patent. Then the defendant claimed that the patent’s claims No. 1 to No.6 did not comply with the novelty and inventiveness according to provisions of the Patent Law and declared all rights of the patent were invalid. “Happy Grass” agreed with the defendant’s opinion and requested the court to reject the plaintiff’s litigation request.
In the end, the court decided to reject the plaintiff’s litigation request and uphold the decision of invalidation of the patent, and “Huateng” failed in the lawsuit.
Here is part of the decision made by Beijing Intellectual Property Court